2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-21-2011

Ronald Jackson v. Secretary PA Dept of Correctio

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1979

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Ronald Jackson v. Secretary PA Dept of Correctio" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 820.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/820
ALD-228 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1979

___________

RONALD JACKSON,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS; DAVID DIGUGLIELMO;

DARINA VARNERI; MARY CANINO; CAPT. SPAGONETTI;

JEROME STRICKLAND; KIM ULSEY; KAY MILLER; MICHAEL SPENCER;

DENNIS WHITE; LT. VERROSKI; JAMES DAY; SGT. HOLSEY; SGT. CURRAN; 

SGT. GUIDO; CO. M.R. MCCLINE, JR.; CO. LYON; CO. BISSELL;

SHAN; CO. LAURIE

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No.10-cv-03636)

District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

June 30, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed July 21, 2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Ronald Jackson appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the 
2

Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint. We will affirm.

Jackson filed a civil action in District Court by filing a complaint against twenty 

defendants, naming the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and 

nineteen officers and employees of the State Correctional Institution-Graterford.1 The 

District Court granted Jackson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed 

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), with leave to file an amended complaint 

within thirty days. The District Court instructed Jackson to describe in his amended 

complaint, as clearly and briefly as possible, the specific events that violated his 

constitutional rights, the identities of the persons involved in his claims, and the harm he 

suffered, if any, from each violation. Jackson requested additional time to file his 

amended complaint, which the District Court granted, allowing Jackson approximately 

one additional month beyond the original deadline.

Jackson filed a “Motion With Leave To File An Amended Complaint,” with a 

proposed amended complaint and supporting documents attached. Jackson later filed a 

document titled “Plaintiff’s Order To Show Cause For Preliminary Injunction.” On 

March 18, 2011, the District Court entered a dismissal order, finding that the amended 

complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

noting that the proposed complaint consisted of “53 pages of rambling complaints, 

handwritten, single spaced, and in many instances difficult if not impossible to read.” 

The District Court also noted that the “Plaintiff’s Order To Show Cause” must be 

 

1

 The complaint was partially on a complaint form and partially handwritten, and 

the document spanned about thirty pages.
3

dismissed insofar as it was based upon the motion for leave to file and the amended 

complaint.

Jackson appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise 

plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint. See Tourscher v. 

McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). However, we review the District Court’s 

dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure for an abuse of discretion. See In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 

702 (3d Cir. 1996).

Upon review of the record, and holding Jackson’s amended complaint to less 

stringent standards in light of his pro se status, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

(2007), we agree with the District Court that the amended complaint failed to comply 

with Rule 8. The amended complaint consists of approximately fifty pages of rambling 

allegations, presented mostly in single-paragraph style, often with each paragraph 

spanning several pages.2 As the District Court noted, most of the document appears in 

handwriting that is unreadable in many instances. The amended complaint lacks “a short 

and plain statement” of the court’s jurisdictional grounds, and of the claim showing 

entitlement to relief, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and the allegations are not “simple, concise, 

and direct,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court 

did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jackson’s amended complaint and the related 

pending matters.

 

2

The accompanying “Motion With Leave To File An Amended Complaint” is 

presented in similar style and length.
4

We will affirm the District Court’s order because this appeal does not present a 

substantial question. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4.